Iran is not Iraq, and past mistakes should not cloud our judgment

Emanuele Ottolenghi

"The truth is that a nuclear Iran would be destabilising even if Iran acted rationally." Photo: AP

As prospects of an Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear program mount, the concerns of many are understandable - an Iranian response, some argue, would be devastating, and the potential for faulty intelligence - as in Iraq - is high.

But the truth is that a nuclear Iran would be destabilising even if Iran acted rationally. It would trigger a cascade of proliferation in one of the most critical and volatile regions of the world. It would usher a new Cold War. It would escalate regional conflicts. And it could ultimately lead to war anyway. Sounding the alarm, therefore, is not warmongering on false evidence. Comparisons with Iraq are actually misleading, for at least three reasons.

First, Iran's program is conducted in many facilities that can be observed from satellites, while in Iraq there was a presumption - but no evidence - of clandestine installations.

Second, Iran's program relies significantly on supplies from the now-defunct A.Q. Khan nuclear-proliferation network, which has supplied the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with a wealth of detail on its nuclear transfers to Iran. More recently, details of Iran's clandestine program emerged from a rogue Russian scientist who worked on it as a gun for hire.

Advertisement

Third, the most worrying details of Iran's program have come from the periodic reports of the same IAEA, as French nuclear security expert Bruno Tertrais notes, ''that asserted in early 2003, at the risk of enraging Washington, that Iraq did not appear to have resumed its nuclear program after 1991 and which sceptics therefore should take seriously''.

Iran's nuclear program for much of its history was clandestine - hardly proof of peaceful intentions. In 2002 and 2009, respectively, opposition sources and western intelligence exposed its three main facilities for fuel production - Arak (heavy water reactor which could be used for plutonium production), Natanz and Fordow (both uranium enrichment). The intelligence accuracy, here, was miles away from the Iraq experience.

There is also much to doubt in Iran's claim that its program's purposes are peaceful. It has failed, for 28 years, to produce one single watt of electricity, except for the Bushehr nuclear reactor, which only recently came online.

The history of concealment, the IAEA-corroborated evidence, and the fact Iran decided to launch in 1984 at the height of the Iran-Iraq war, all suggest Iran has military, not civilian aims for its program.

But critics of the ongoing war rhetoric reassure us that Iran is a rational actor. It can thus be persuaded to renounce its quest through diplomatic means and sanctions - despite nearly 10 years of failed efforts - or deterred if it acquires nuclear weapons. They also warn us that Iran's response to a pre-emptive attack will be devastating.

The fact is, if Iran is rational enough that it can be dissuaded, Iran will be rational enough to understand that an excessive response to a military strike will carry devastating consequences for its regime.

Iran must know that a limited response to an Israeli strike, which focuses on Israeli targets alone, is less likely to draw the US into the fight. Iran knows, for example, that efforts to block the Strait of Hormuz would be met with devastating military response by US forces.

In short, if critics of war offer the case for a rational Iran as a reason not to attack, they surely must agree that Iran's rational response will be discerning - it should retaliate against Israel, but not beyond.

And conversely, if Iran's response can be expected to be irrational, then why should anyone feel reassured that their current policy can be deterred or that a nuclear Iran would act responsibly?

Wars are never straightforward affairs. And they should never be preferred over the alternative.

But Iran's nuclear threat is real, and its consequences would be dramatic for a region on which the global economy critically depends. Talk of war is neither irresponsible then, nor unfounded. Besides, if Iran is so rational, a credible threat of a military attack may in fact persuade Iran its nuclear quest is futile.

Therefore, the threat should be kept on the table. Efforts to discredit the evidence against Iran, dismiss the consequences of a nuclear Iran, or exaggerate the outcomes of an attack are just as irresponsible as trigger-happy talk of war.

Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies in Washington and author of The Pasdaran: Inside Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (FDD Press, 2011). He recently visited Australia as a guest of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.

13 comments

Now you want to start Vietnam version 3.0. You have failed to fund Vietnam version 2.0 (Iran and Iraq) and you shattered your economy as a result. In case you hadn’t noticed, you lost Vietnam version 2.0 both financially and militarily. Do you enjoy being defeated? It is evident that listening is not a capability you have. Under the laws of neutrality you will be offered no military or intelligence assistance under any circumstances for Vietnam version 3.0. You do not have the military resources or the funds needed to win. You are so far from having these capabilities that it is laughable. When you lose the consequences of defeat will be worse for you than what losing Vietnam version 2.0 is doing to you. Now stop being silly and grow up.

Commenter

peteg3

Location

sydney

Date and time

March 30, 2012, 7:59AM

So the rationale, ultimately, is "We can win a war against Iran so we have the right to do anything up and including starting a war to impose our will of a sovereign state." What a proud day for democracy!

This is why no person who is committed to stopping an illegal attack on Iran should believe for a moment that peaceful protest will have any effect at all. The only thing these people understand is force. That is just the fact.

It is all rubbish. The real reason Netanyahu is going to launch a limited cruise missile strike on Iran before November is that he believes he has the right to do this to ensure Barack Obama is not elected to a second term.

Israel will say it's limited strike was "a slap in the face" to bring Iran to it's senses. There will be a violent regional upheaval, many will die, but few Israelis. Obama will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't - he will lose.

So this is all about Israel making sure the next American president is not one who has a history of actively opposing the continued illegal occupation and expansion of Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestine.

Commenter

Col in

Location

Sydney

Date and time

March 30, 2012, 8:22AM

when it comes to destabilizing the middle east, there is nothing to compare to the transformation of europe's 'jewish problem' into palestine's 'jewish problem.'

anyone who is unhappy with iran's current government should blame the cia, and mi6, who together overthrew iran's parliamentary government and installed the brutal dictatorship of the shah.

Commenter

al loomis

Location

woy woy

Date and time

March 30, 2012, 8:30AM

The CIA and Mossad have openly admitted Iran has not the WMD's their countrie's administrations claim, so what the hell is the US and Israel still building up their presence in the Straight of Homuz? Wasn't their excuse the possession of WMD's AKA Nukes the reason to provoke a war with a sovereign nation such as Iran? Every day that passes the US and Israel's reasons for going to war against Iran become much more clear, nothing to do witn Nukes, they want their oil and eventually get to Russia and China and drag the whole world into Armagedon, why? Because war is profit to the Banksters.

Commenter

Louis

Location

Cranbourne

Date and time

March 30, 2012, 8:36AM

He recently visited Australia as a guest of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.

-- That says all...

Commenter

SH of Sydney

Location

Sydney

Date and time

March 30, 2012, 8:56AM

The government of Iran exports major terrorism through it's undeniable arming of both Hamas and Hezbollah, it is one of the majoe backers of Assad, it has threatened to wipe out Israel, it has murdered it's own people who oppose the goverenment (or who want change through election). Unfortunately it also exports oil - in particular to China; and it exports money to Russia for it's Nuclear technology. So just like with Syria, China and Russia escape any real censure for their despicable support of this regime.....and the waste of space that is the UN driven by the Arab lobby once again refuses to act.If Israel is forced to Act on its own, they will be condemned in public.....and every Government will breath a sigh of relief for the dirty work that Israel will have done.

Commenter

No_BS

Date and time

March 30, 2012, 9:25AM

The Sunnis in the M.E. are well aware of the imperialistic designs of the Shiite Ayatollah dictators.The Islamic games were cancelled over what to call the "Persian Gulf'.Iran claims Lebanon,ruled by their Hezballa proxy militia, as the "Southern border of Iran".As Ahmadinejad said " A nation of maryrs can rule the mountaintops of the world".As expected from people who pray for global apocalypse.

Commenter

Theantijihad

Location

byronbay

Date and time

March 30, 2012, 10:27AM

The Foundation for the Defence of Democracies is a Right Wing "Thoughtless" tank set up to address the "threat facing America, Israel and the West". It's board and board of advisors consists of such notable defenders of democracy as Joe Lieberman, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer.

Most of what it publishes is faux "research" papers that contain largely unadulterated propaganda for the criminality of Israel and the US. Much of that material is the product of distortion, fabrication, misrepresentation, outright falsehoods and prevarication. Apart from that it was a great article!!!???!!!

Commenter

Lesm

Location

Balmain

Date and time

March 30, 2012, 10:40AM

Any truth in story in FP about Israel having access to Azerbaijani airfields and also whether the Obama administration leaked this info to FP?

ref: Drudge

Commenter

Ben Pensant

Location

Sydney

Date and time

March 30, 2012, 11:17AM

I don't know anything about Iran's "hidden" agenda, but we all know their stated agenda - the obliteration of Israel.

Iran is already at war with Israel by funding Hezbollah and other maniac groups.